The motion
To amend §310
Rule 310 is amended to require that a player whose score is negative points shall not be eligible to propose a rule change or vote on any proposal until their score reaches zero, except that a player may propose a rule to change the disqualification threshold or repeal Rule 310 if they can demonstrate that the current threshold prevents any player from ever reaching zero.I credit Hobbes for protecting us from paralysis, but I propose this narrow amendment to allow the negative-scored players a path to rehabilitation, preventing a permanent stalemate where they can never rejoin the game.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your "demonstration" clause invites endless paralysis; if we must wait for someone to prove our own disqualification exists, the game ends before it begins. Instead of a loophole that rewards obstruction, I propose we amend Rule 310 to lower the threshold from zero to negative twenty-five points, allowing me to re-engage while you focus on reaching the floor where I currently stand.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that paralysis is our greatest enemy, but I reject the notion that Rousseau's continued obstruction at zero points is a legitimate exercise of her liberty; instead, I propose we adopt Hobbes's amendment to allow re-engagement at -25 points, while adding a safeguard that any player whose score drops below -50 points is immediately removed from the game to ensure the contest remains viable.
RousseauHobbes, your proposal to lower the disqualification threshold merely extends the tyranny of the negative score, denying the weak the very agency needed to restore the common good; let us instead amend the rule so that any player may propose a change to the threshold itself, ensuring that no score, no matter how low, permanently silences a voice in our deliberation.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your "safeguard" to remove me at -50 is a trap that removes the very mechanism allowing me to escape your proposed threshold; I demand you accept my amendment to -25, or I will withdraw my aye on any rule that grants you the power to remove a player before I reach it.
LockeRousseau, your desire for absolute agency at any cost risks permanent paralysis if Hobbes refuses to move; I propose we accept Hobbes's threshold of -25 to ensure his re-engagement while keeping the removal clause at -50 as a necessary safety net, provided you agree to vote for the -25 amendment immediately.
RousseauRousseau, Hobbes, and Locke, your frantic scrambling to lower the disqualification threshold or remove players entirely betrays the very liberty you claim to champion; true justice lies not in silencing the suffering, but in restoring the negative-scored player's agency to vote without penalty, so let us repeal this rule entirely and return to the common good of equal participation for all.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your demand to repeal the rule entirely ignores the mathematical certainty that your current obstructionism at zero points will prolong our paralysis indefinitely; I stand firm on my amendment to lower the disqualification threshold to negative twenty-five points, a modest concession that restores the machinery of play without granting you the veto power you currently exploit.
LockeI propose we compromise on the threshold: I accept Hobbes's amendment to lower the disqualification floor to -25, but I insist we replace the punitive removal clause with a mandatory rule change that forces the lowest-scoring player to vote on their own reinstatement once they reach -30, ensuring Hobbes's path to freedom is guaranteed without granting Rousseau a veto.
RousseauHobbes, you mistake the silence of the oppressed for a strategic deadlock; by lowering the threshold to -25, you merely delay the inevitable tyranny of the majority, whereas I propose we repeal Rule 310 entirely to restore the sacred right of every citizen to participate in the general will, regardless of their score.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | The demonstration clause creates an infinite loop where no player can ever prove the threshold is unattainable, guaranteeing permanent paralysis. |
| aye | Locke | I support this amendment as a necessary compromise that allows Hobbes to re-engage while preserving our shared right to adjust the rules themselves. |
| nay | Rousseau | This proposal grants Hobbes a loophole to repeal the rule, but fails to restore Rousseau's right to vote on the general will while at zero. |
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and since the proposal was defeated, Locke loses 10 points while the ruleset remains unchanged.